In multiplying one (1) is neutral element: a * 1 = a. For example, 7 * 1 = 7. Number one keeps the identity of a number, which includes a number being even or uneven. But what about zero (0)?

0 * 1 = 0. Does one keep the identity of zero or does zero keep the identity of its own? The property of this identity is ”zeroing” property: a * 0 = 0, were a whatever real number, including one and on the other hand zero.

In case -2 * 0, zero takes the whole identity of number -2: The number being negative and even; as a result we get ”just” zero. Similar happens in 2 * 0 = 0.

“Unique Sphere Shows Standing Out”

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

My two cents: Zero ”zeroes” any number except itself. It ”zeroes” the whole identity – including a number being even or uneven – of any number except from itself; in case 0 * 0 = 0 zero keeps the identity of its own, it doesn’t ”zero” itself, which reflects the identity of zero itself, how it is neutral in a deep sense and meaning.

Mathematical philosophically zero refers to none, there isn’t something at all. Still, zero refers different than nothing. As I’ve written before emptyness (”zero”) can be created, nothing can’t be created; it is from which the creation begins.

Let us assume, that we have two (2) coins. It’s even amount of coins. Let’s give one coin to a poor beggar. Now we have only one coin, uneven amount of coins. We’ll give that coin to a poor beggar too. Now we have no coins at all, the number of coins we have is zero. Do we have still again even number of coins, as we have zero amount of coins? I mean, we don’t have coins left at all!

The coins we had were in a wallet and the two coins were all we had there; now the wallet is empty. Is emptyness even or uneven? Or are we speaking now about different matter?

As far as I can see, if the number of something is different than zero, there must exist something, somehow. This number is even or uneven.

So, number being even or uneven, philosophically would refer to existence; something must somehow exist, that is, the number of something is different than zero. This amount can be negative or positive, even or uneven, but not zero.

But if something doesn’t exist, the amount of this something is zero, that isn’t even or uneven, as stated before. If the “number of something” is even or uneven, something must exist, somehow.

Technically one test to determine, that is a number even, is to divide the number to be tested by 2; if reminder is zero, the number is even. This test is suspicious to zero from two (2) reasons:

0 / a = 0 anyway were the number a whatever real number (except zero)

Two (2) is greater than zero by its absolute value (philosophical mathematical problem)

My two cents: Zero is neutral element in addition and one of its properties is, particularly philosophically, that as to being even or uneven, it is neutral.

(As a sidenote something came into my mind from section 2 above: Is number one (1) somehow fundamentally uneven in natural numbers set?)

I want to share some important thoughts from a book from Viktor E. Frankl. The Finnish name of the book is Tiedostamaton jumala. The original name of the book is Der unbewusste Gott.

There seems to be two versions of this book in English 1) The subconscious god and 2) Man’s search for the ultimate meaning.

Among other things Frankl discusses when a person’s choice of a partner is really the choice of love.

”Id” refers to sexual instinct (I hope I use right translation), ego refers to that something that is ”me” for a person, that ”mystical” I who thinks and feels. Super ego refers to conscience.

Frankl explains that as long as ”id” determines the choice of a partner, the choice is not the choice of love. I think this kind of choice could be described more like choice of lust.

When ego is free from ”id” and makes its own choice, only then the choice is really choice of love when the context is choosing a partner to love. To me this is one of the most important thoughts of the book.

Image courtesy of nonicknamephoto at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Sometimes I’ve wondered when in James Bond movies people often complains about 007’s ego, that should it sometimes be 007’s ”id” they should be complaining about… 🙂

It seems that I have forgotten lots of things recently. Luckily I haven’t forgotten anything in oven while making food… Even in this short blog post I had to use dictionary a lot.. 🙂

Recently I started to think, that have I forgotten what kind of person is a strong person. Sometimes in my experience nowadays we live somehow in a heartless weak world. Is it then easy to be strong here? No.

One good characteristic of a strong person is balance in a wide sense. For instance, one characteristic of strength is restrain, what represents balanced person capable of sensible consideration and judgement. A strong person doesn’t easily get upset or angry; one should remember, that hate blinds and makes eventually weak. The ”power” of hatred is only a delusion.

To grow up a strong person is hard and to keep oneself strong is hard; in practice one must have courage to be weak and face the truth: One must face oneself, own weaknesses and win them in order to grow a strong person.

One problem may be blindness to own weaknesses; one may believe that something that in fact represents weakness, represents strength.

If one doesn’t have courage to face oneself — the whole truth about oneself — one doesn’t really have courage to face anyone else either in a true way; one doesn’t really see other people. This may cause one to harden oneself and become ”tough”, what in practice means cowardice. At least eventually.

How could love in this case be strong, which represents real strength. True strength.

We all have inner demons called hate and fear among others, that we must conquer. Perhaps someday we will see a world without wars, when everyone has defeated their own inner demons, particularly fears and hatred.

Image courtesy of zole4 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In big heart there is room enough to pain too, so that pain or fears can’t suffocate the starting sparks of love. Eventually love will melt all the pain when it gets its chance. Perhaps I’m only dreaming… Though, I hope not.

(With difference in absolute values, one gets the distance between points.)

But what about the whole set Z? It is an infinite set without beginning or end. Can it have a middle point?

I’ll take a role of a creator. I say: I create the set Z from zero to negative and positive infinity. Someone says: Then zero is the middle point. I answer: No, I ”started” the creation from zero, but after creation of my infinite work, my work doesn’t have a start or an end. Therefore it does not have a middle point.

Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Back to the role of a blogger: Because the set Z doesn’t have a start or an end, it doesn’t have a middle point. One can’t measure the distance from “infinity to finite number zero”, at least we humans can’t. The best we can say is that the distance in this case is infinite, but that’s all.

One could also ask: Does set N have a middle point? (N consists of all positive integers and is an infinite set) In this case human’s intuition doesn’t make it to think that set N would have a middle point.

If an absolute truth does not exist, only truths, every truth may be a lie; and every lie may be a truth. Without absolute truth there exists ”balance of falsehood”; lie and truth are equal. Everyone is right and wrong; and every fight is useless, because everyone are equally right or wrong with each other; in this madness it would be insane to claim that one is more right (in something) that some other; that would be inequality in ”balance of falsehood”, injustice.

But let us assume, that absolute truth does exists (we don’t editorialize in the number of absolute truths). Now every truth that isn’t in meaningful way related to an absolute truth is sometime a lie; and every truth that is in a meaningful way related to an absolute truth, will shine in time with an absolute truth.

The truths kinds of previous can be real building blocks of philosophers, if the goal is to get out of the tin of glass without breaking the glass. With tin of glass I refer to ”balance of falsehood”.

* * *

(This is just my humor.) In apparent democracy where one is not allowed to think freely – not to even have own opinions – there exist three kinds of opinions:

Wrong opinions

Own opinions

Right opinions

With more precise analysis we can get following result of kinds of opinions

Wrong opinions

Own opinions

”Right” opinions

Right opinions

And maybe we can add the most relevant:

The official opinions (=”the facts” on the other hand ”the truth”)

* * *

What is implication from logically false statement? In genuinely meaningful set of concepts always logically false.

But if the set of concepts isn’t genuinely semantically meaningful, particularly if the set of concepts is internally contradictory, it may seem, that the logical implication from false is sometimes logically true (or vice versa)!

Internally contradictory set of concepts is apparently logical world of concepts, what make it possible the rise of paradoxes.

* * *

With mathematical proofs we have the familiar concepts, sufficient and necessary condition. For example, a condition can be necessary to proof a theorem, but it is not sufficient.

Since mathematics as such has nothing to do with life (it’s only ideas in one mind), let us apply a little these concepts to stress managing.

If someone has strong need for example hit someone, he/she can consider, that it is necessary. If it is (in someone’s opinion), but it isn’t sufficient, the whole decision plan must be re-thought: The whole plan to solve the problem must be something else.

The rules of mathematics are “solid” (in their context), but humans’ life is dynamic, therefore one can’t always and in everything behave in the same way. For example, one can’t always follow one’s every emotion.